What was first?

[Esdra]

The Bible as a whole, Old Testament and New Testament, came through men of the Christian Church. We can see that Christ building a Church is authored in the New Testament. We can also see the New Testament confirming authority upon a Church and not scriptures alone.

Ehm,and how can the OT come through men of the Christian Church? It’s much older.
Only because the RCC uses the Vulgate to translate the Holy Bible into the various modern languages this doesn’t mean that the OT came through men of the Christian Church.
Protestant Churches will always use the original tongues of the OT (which is Aramaic, Greek and Hebrew!) to translate the Bible into a modern language.
“Ad fontes!” - Back to the sources. This is also right for the Church since the Renaissance. (Ever mentioned that the Renaissance is my favourite part of History? )

Maybe what you’re sincerely asking is if the synagogue existed prior to the Old Testament.

No, actually I was not referring to a building at all. - Neither to a synagogue nor to a church.

I asked Richard if he thought if the people of Israel, the Jews, were the first Church (like Catholic Church). - As, i.e. the BoM writes. (That “the Church” existed prior Christ’s appearence in America).

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Ehm,and how can the OT come through men of the Christian Church? It’s much older.
Only because the RCC uses the Vulgate to translate the Holy Bible into the various modern languages this doesn’t mean that the OT came through men of the Christian Church.
Protestant Churches will always use the original tongues of the OT (which is Aramaic, Greek and Hebrew!) to translate the Bible into a modern language.
“Ad fontes!” - Back to the sources. This is also right for the Church since the Renaissance. (Ever mentioned that the Renaissance is my favourite part of History? )

I guess I’ll apologize for not making myself clear enough for you to understand, but please notice I said, ‘The Bible as a whole…’

Speaking of ‘original tongues’, we have to realize that Martin Luther chose the Hebrew Palestinian Canon for the Old Testament. Jews have the same canon as Protestants.

New Testament translations include some Aramaic mixed with the languages used by the authors. As you say, that’s the best you can ‘get back to the sources’ for the New Testament.

No, actually I was not referring to a building at all. - Neither to a synagogue nor to a church.

I asked Richard if he thought if the people of Israel, the Jews, were the first Church (like Catholic Church). - As, i.e. the BoM writes. (That “the Church” existed prior Christ’s appearence in America).

It amazes me that people, for some reason, deliberately refer to Churches, other than their own, as buildings. Buildings are where we meet, assemble, or hold ‘Church’. Of course we refer to those buildings as Church. Either way, I’d partially agree with Richard. The Church existed since, or even before, Pentacost, which was long before Mormons ‘claim’ that Christ appeared in America.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Richard Kastner;7503794:

Mhm, it depends what you understand under Church, IMO.
Would you consider the people of Israel as “the Church”?

Would you not consider the children of Israel God’s church

Genesis 12
1Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee:
2And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
3And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

The blessing that God gives to the world here through the seed of Abraham is of coarse His Son Jesus Christ and the one who would crush the head of the serpant in Gen 3:15 is Jesus. How could His antecedents not be called His church?

 

[benidict]

Esdra;7504895:

Would you not consider the children of Israel God’s church

Genesis 12
1Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee:
2And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
3And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

The blessing that God gives to the world here through the seed of Abraham is of coarse His Son Jesus Christ and the one who would crush the head of the serpant in Gen 3:15 is Jesus. How could His antecedents not be called His church?

nope. i would personally not consider them Gods Church Richard. they were and still are, his chosen people. His chosen nation. The Church was set up by Christ, when he came to earth. as a fullfillement of his covenant with them. they as a nation refused to believe in Him. so a veil of spiritual blindness was introduced until the full number of the gentiles would come in. then, when the veil is lifted, they as a nation will recognize Christ as their Messiah. at that time they will say blessed is he that comes in the Name of the Lord. this is spoken of in the book of romans, as well as by Christ in the gospels. some believed in him. but the majority rejected him. the Church is at this time a seperate entity. the good news is, that at some time in the future, the Children of Israel, as a whole, will be reconciled to Christ. Malichi 1:11 also prophecies this time period. the prophecy you cite, in genisis refers to the future. when Mary said yes. feel free to refute. i look forward to it. Peace

 

[PJM]

=Esdra;7502426]Hi!

What was first: The egg or the hen?
Ehm, no. - Just kidding.

What was first? The Church or the Bible?

In another thread we came on the topic what was first: The Bible or the Church.

Here the original Quotes:

Historically and indispuitably the Church was first and are the proud parents of the Bible.

The Bible was not Completly writen until close to the end of the First Century; DECADES afther Christ formed His Church; and the Canon of the Bible did not take place for several Centuries after the Church was formed and thriving.

The Church existed on Tradition Before it relied on the Bible.

God Bless,
Pat

// Actually, you’re thoughts here are pretty intersting. I’d like to talk about that a little bit more in depth, Publisher. //*

in Christ,

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

There are over 300 quotations from the New Testament that mirror and or teaching are revealed from the Deutero books. Maybe I can email them to you if you would like?

Esdra;7504910]Wait. I have always thought that most prophesies concerning Christ are in the Prophets or the 5 Books of Moses?
Do you want to say that the 7 Deuterocanonical Books (that were “removed” by the Protestants and the Jews) proves that Jesus is the Messiah?
Could you give me some reference from these books?!

The Old Testament was already written and taught by Jesus and apostles “Orally”, when they begin to write what is already taught and believed Pentecost the birthday of the Church is already in existence. So the Church was first before the New testament was written, yet the written Old testament was already in circulation.

But they were there. So the Scriptures were most definitely there before the Catholic Church even started to exist. - Especially if you consider Jesus ministry in Israel to be the NT. (So this was “oral Scripture” then; although that’s a paradoxon then! XD)

That is an excellent question? ST =sacred Tradition is what Catholics practice in liturgy and through the sacramental ecomony established by Jesus Christ himself. Capital Tradition is not the same from small “t” tradition which you mentioned about saints and prayers, these are subject to change, but the sacred Tradition is never subject to change for example the Eucharist this was handed down to us both written and oral Tradition from Jesus and the apostles, thus the Mass is filled with sacred scripture and sacred Tradition.

Peace be with you

Actually a little bit off-topic question: How can one learn ST if he is was not raised Catholic an converts?
I mean I was risen Catholic (more or less) and I just remembered various Saints-legends I know, like the one of St. Martin, or St. Barbara or St. Niklas…
Or how to pray a rosary etc.
That’s also a part of the ST, right?

And with you.

 

[Esdra]

There are over 300 quotations from the New Testament that mirror and or teaching are revealed from the Deutero books. Maybe I can email them to you if you would like?

You’ve got mail (PM).

The Old Testament was already written and taught by Jesus and apostles “Orally”, when they begin to write what is already taught and believed Pentecost the birthday of the Church is already in existence. So the Church was first before the New testament was written, yet the written Old testament was already in circulation.

That is an excellent question? ST =sacred Tradition is what Catholics practice in liturgy and through the sacramental ecomony established by Jesus Christ himself. Capital Tradition is not the same from small “t” tradition which you mentioned about saints and prayers, these are subject to change, but the sacred Tradition is never subject to change for example the Eucharist this was handed down to us both written and oral Tradition from Jesus and the apostles, thus the Mass is filled with sacred scripture and sacred Tradition.

What would be an example of Sacred Tradition that doesn’t say in the Holy Bible?
Do you have a list with Sacred tradition and Sacred Tradition? Maybe a chart or so?
So you could say Jesus was against Jewish tradition (with small t) when he speaks so bold against the Pharisees in Scribes (especially in the Gospel according to St. Matthew)?

Peace be with you

And with you and yours,

 

[Skeptic92]

Ehm,and how can the OT come through men of the Christian Church? It’s much older.
Only because the RCC uses the Vulgate to translate the Holy Bible into the various modern languages this doesn’t mean that the OT came through men of the Christian Church.
**Protestant Churches will always use the original tongues of the OT (which is Aramaic, Greek and Hebrew!) to translate the Bible into a modern language. **
“Ad fontes!” - Back to the sources. This is also right for the Church since the Renaissance. (Ever mentioned that the Renaissance is my favourite part of History? )

No, actually I was not referring to a building at all. - Neither to a synagogue nor to a church.

I asked Richard if he thought if the people of Israel, the Jews, were the first Church (like Catholic Church). - As, i.e. the BoM writes. (That “the Church” existed prior Christ’s appearence in America).

in regard to the emphasised part of the quote, the main Bible that Protestants seem to use (the KJV) isn’t truly translated 100% from the original language, parts of it was taken from the Douay Rheims Bible (English Translation), mainly being parts of the Old Testament, and while the original languages might be used, originals of the texts haven’t been used since the first few century’s (even St Jerome probably used copies, and not originals) as they have been lost, and probably disintegrated by now

Personally, I’ld say that the Church came before the Bible (The Bible, not the Tanakh, so both the OT and the NT, not just the OT), instituted around the time of the Crucifixion so circa 30-33AD, if we are talking about the Church of Christ, if we are talking about the Faith of Abraham, it was long before that.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

nope. i would personally not consider them Gods Church Richard. they were and still are, his chosen people. His chosen nation.

You really don’t think that God set up a church among His chosen people? That’s really a remarkable theory Ben. Let me ask you a question. You say that they, I’m assuming you mean Jews, are God’s chosen people. What exactly do you think they were chosen for Ben?

The Church was set up by Christ, when he came to earth. as a fullfillement of his covenant with them. they as a nation refused to believe in Him.

There were many faithful people in the old testament Noah, Abraham, Moses, Joshua etc. Are you saying that these had no church, religion?

so a veil of spiritual blindness was introduced until the full number of the gentiles would come in then, when the veil is lifted, they as a nation will recognize Christ as their Messiah. at that time they will say blessed is he that comes in the Name of the Lord. this is spoken of in the book of romans, as well as by Christ in the gospels. some believed in him. but the majority rejected him.

Where in Romans and the gospels?

the Church is at this time a seperate entity.

Seperate from what?

the good news is, that at some time in the future, the Children of Israel, as a whole, will be reconciled to Christ. Malichi 1:11 also prophecies this time period. the prophecy you cite, in genisis refers to the future. when Mary said yes. feel free to refute. i look forward to it. Peace

So, let me get this straight.
Gen.3
15And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

You’re saying that there was no enmity between the seed of Satan and God’s children up until “Mary said yes”? And that the Lord makes a covenant with Abram that He will make of him a great nation and in him all the nations of the earth will be blessed Gen 12:1-3, but you don’t think that the Lord set up a religion, church, with these people? That the Lord had Moses build Him a sanctuary that God Himself dwelt in mind you, set up a priesthood taken from the Levites, set up a prophetic sacrificial system that pointed directly to Jesus, but this had nothing to do with a church? Well, I gotta ask you then, how do you define church?

 

[rinnie]

Esdra;7504895:

Would you not consider the children of Israel God’s church

Genesis 12
1Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee:
2And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
3And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

The blessing that God gives to the world here through the seed of Abraham is of coarse His Son Jesus Christ and the one who would crush the head of the serpant in Gen 3:15 is Jesus. How could His antecedents not be called His church?

Well I would have to say Yes and No. Here is why. The God of Abraham is indeed the same God that is in the CC. Because there is only ONE GOD.

But did the Jews have a Church? They did refer to it as the temple. Now the problem is the Jews do not accept the Church. Remember Jesus destroyed the temple and rebuilt it in 3 days.

Now look back at the O.T. what did it do? Simple, it predicted the comming of Jesus. It was full of the word of God, preparing us for our Savior Jesus Christ.

Now the Jews were indeed the chosen people, but the Jews rejected Jesus. But the gentiles didn’t they accepted him. So you are saying how could the O.T. not be the CHurch. Simple the CHurch is made up of the N.T AND the O.T.

So let me ask you this another way. How can the O.T be the Church without the N.T. Jesus fulfilled everything that the O.T predicted?

While I will give you the O.T was indeed the true word of God in that time, It never changed, but how can you have the True Church with half the book?

Again to make myself clear the O.T is indeed still the word of God and is the same today as before Christ. But what about the N.T. Is not the CHurch the combination of both books now?

Now I could be wrong, but I don’t believe I ever heard the Temple referred to as the Church. I only heard Church when Christ came. But as I said this I am not 100% sure on. I will have to go back to the O.T.and check.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Ok, I will see if I can PM em’ to you

Esdra;7523275]You’ve got mail (PM).

Sacred Scripture supports Sacred Tradition the two go hand in hand in order to recieve the “full deposit of faith” from Jesus and his apostles. What you are asking deals with what is revealed explicitly in scripture and the Traditions which are implicit in scripture.

For example there are many texts in the New Testament that reveal a liturgy (Mass) after the resurrection, Acts 2:42, Luke 24:27-35 among many others.

Trinity is another Sacred Tradition that was handed down both Orally and made implicit from sacred scripture.

The Eucharist is another Sacred Tradition handed down to us from the apostles, here is St.Paul handing down parts of the Mass in the liturgy of the Eucharist the same one Catholics follow today unchanged these past 2000 years, the difference here is St. Paul places a curse for those who do not discern the True body and blood of the Lord in the Eucharist, and for those who eat this Eucharist in an unworthy manner. See below.

1Corinthians 11:23
For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread,
24
and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
25
In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
26
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
27
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. 12
28
**A person should examine himself, 13 and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
29
For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment 14 on himself. **

In summary all the 7 Sacraments instituted by Jesus Christ to part saving grace are taught (some implicit, some explicit such as baptism which “saves you now” 1Peter 3:21) in sacred scripture and is revealed by Sacred Tradition in practice since the apostles.

Sacred Tradition also follows the teachings of Jesus building his Church upon our first Pope St. Peter Matthew 16:18, since then by Sacred Tradition the Church Jesus founded is proved from history an unbroken line of (popes) successors from St. Peter. Priests, bishops, and deacons are from sacred Tradition.

The resurrection comes to us from sacred Tradition, the martyrdoms of the apostles come from sacred Tradition.

The Our Father prayed in community during the Mass comes from sacred Tradition. The list goes on and on… much of what Catholics practice from sacred Tradition such as confession is documented from ancient text called the Didache, which records many of the sacred Traditions I mentioned above.

Many of these sacred Traditions developed into Church doctrine because heretics and heresies came against them such as the Trinity. These sacred Traditions then become doctrine = binding on all believers.

A list of sacred Traditions would be better served if you questioned one to see if it comes from sacred Tradition or small “t” tradition. I don’t have a list available nor do I know of a list. You see, a list would not really suffice because some sacred Traditions in other Catholic Rites may differ in practice but is believed the same. Secondly some sacred Traditions are practiced, but are not made doctrine =binding on all believers because they are believed by all and have not been attacked by heretics or heresies. For example the belief in “one God”, Jesus God incarnate, Mary a virgin who gave birth to Jesus etc…

I think a place to start between Tradition and tradition deals with the difference is between what is believed (doctrine) in by faith and practice by all Catholics and tradition which deals with disciplines.

What would be an example of Sacred Tradition that doesn’t say in the Holy Bible?
Do you have a list with Sacred tradition and Sacred Tradition? Maybe a chart or so?

The first century Jews were divided between their own Oral sacred Traditions which believed in the resurrection and those Jews who rejected their Oral sacred Traditions which only held to the letter of the law, just as Catholics hold to both written and apostolic Oral Traditions and protestants hold to just “sola scriptura” letters on a page =bible only.

Jesus rejected the small “t” traditions of men who added 666 more laws to the 10 commandments to follow. Jesus taught them they burdened God’s people with these man made “traditions”.

Jesus was never condemning the Oral Traditional teachings of His nor the apostles because Jesus had not died and resurrected yet to give His Church birth in the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Jesus commissioned His Church to go out and baptise, and forgive sin, and teach them to observe “all” that He commanded to them. This commissioning is found both in sacred scripture and sacred Tradition in the one holy Catholic and apostolic Church of Jesus Christ.

I appreciate your interests here and continue to seek these revelations of God handed down to His Church through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit.

Peace be with you

So you could say Jesus was against Jewish tradition (with small t) when he speaks so bold against the Pharisees in Scribes (especially in the Gospel according to St. Matthew)?

And with you and yours,

 

[Esdra]

in regard to the emphasised part of the quote, the main Bible that Protestants seem to use (the KJV) isn’t truly translated 100% from the original language, parts of it was taken from the Douay Rheims Bible (English Translation), mainly being parts of the Old Testament, and while the original languages might be used, originals of the texts haven’t been used since the first few century’s (even St Jerome probably used copies, and not originals) as they have been lost, and probably disintegrated by now

Actually, my friend, as far as I know, the KJV is not used anymore as a primary bible. 'Though it is still in high esteem among Protestants.
As far as I got to know (remember: I am not a US Protestant and thus also don’t really use the KJV ), the liberal Protestants (Mainline Churches) usually use the NRSV. And the conservative Protestants (Evangelical Churches), like Baptists, Pentecostals etc., use (among “free Translations” like NLT and NIV etc.) the Amplified Bible and the New American Standard Bible.

From the NRSV and the NASB I know (as I have both at home) that they were most definitely translated from the original tongues (not manuscripts!! - of course they are lost. And as you have pointed correctly out: Not even St. Jerome proboblay didn’t use the original manuscripts!)!

At the moment I am reading an intersting book. So, basically, since, ehm, this week (after reading it ), I know about the history of the KJV. And that it was more or less a revision of Tyndale mixed with the Douay Rheims as a reference. [So, it’s actually a KJV with Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical Books. But the introduction is pretty intersting, before the actualy bible!)

Personally, I’ld say that the Church came before the Bible (The Bible, not the Tanakh, so both the OT and the NT, not just the OT), instituted around the time of the Crucifixion so circa 30-33AD, if we are talking about the Church of Christ, if we are talking about the Faith of Abraham, it was long before that.

Yes, I agree: The “whole Bible” (with NT), was definitely AFTER the Church has been founded.
Although, you could also say that the OT together with Jesus’ (oral teachings) are the Bible and so you could also say that the Bible has been before the founding of the Church (at Pentecost).

 

[Esdra]

Ok, I will see if I can PM em’ to you

Thanks.

Sacred Scripture supports Sacred Tradition the two go hand in hand in order to recieve the “full deposit of faith” from Jesus and his apostles. What you are asking deals with what is revealed explicitly in scripture and the Traditions which are implicit in scripture.

For example there are many texts in the New Testament that reveal a liturgy (Mass) after the resurrection, Acts 2:42, Luke 24:27-35 among many others.

Trinity is another Sacred Tradition that was handed down both Orally and made implicit from sacred scripture.

The Eucharist is another Sacred Tradition handed down to us from the apostles, here is St.Paul handing down parts of the Mass in the liturgy of the Eucharist the same one Catholics follow today unchanged these past 2000 years, the difference here is St. Paul places a curse for those who do not discern the True body and blood of the Lord in the Eucharist, and for those who eat this Eucharist in an unworthy manner. See below.

1Corinthians 11:23
For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread,
24
and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
25
In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
26
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
27
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. 12
28
**A person should examine himself, 13 and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
29
For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment 14 on himself. **

In summary all the 7 Sacraments instituted by Jesus Christ to part saving grace are taught (some implicit, some explicit such as baptism which “saves you now” 1Peter 3:21) in sacred scripture and is revealed by Sacred Tradition in practice since the apostles.

Sacred Tradition also follows the teachings of Jesus building his Church upon our first Pope St. Peter Matthew 16:18, since then by Sacred Tradition the Church Jesus founded is proved from history an unbroken line of (popes) successors from St. Peter. Priests, bishops, and deacons are from sacred Tradition.

The resurrection comes to us from sacred Tradition, the martyrdoms of the apostles come from sacred Tradition.

The Our Father prayed in community during the Mass comes from sacred Tradition. The list goes on and on… much of what Catholics practice from sacred Tradition such as confession is documented from ancient text called the Didache, which records many of the sacred Traditions I mentioned above.

Many of these sacred Traditions developed into Church doctrine because heretics and heresies came against them such as the Trinity. These sacred Traditions then become doctrine = binding on all believers.

A list of sacred Traditions would be better served if you questioned one to see if it comes from sacred Tradition or small “t” tradition. I don’t have a list available nor do I know of a list. You see, a list would not really suffice because some sacred Traditions in other Catholic Rites may differ in practice but is believed the same. Secondly some sacred Traditions are practiced, but are not made doctrine =binding on all believers because they are believed by all and have not been attacked by heretics or heresies. For example the belief in “one God”, Jesus God incarnate, Mary a virgin who gave birth to Jesus etc…

I think a place to start between Tradition and tradition deals with the difference is between what is believed (doctrine) in by faith and practice by all Catholics and tradition which deals with disciplines.

Wow, thank you again. You really have put a lot of effort into that post.
Man, actually, as I am a baptised Catholic, I should all know that. But I don’t. Catholicism is really quite complicated. So many things you should know and, of course, also believe, because IMO, especially in Central Europe, this is the main problem among Catholics: Divorce is OK, homosexuality is OK, premarital sex is of course okay (most normal thing in the world!)

Btw., I’ve read the **Didache **- but actually, I’ve found no single paragraph that’d contradict with the Evangelicals (neither with Lutherans, nor with the Presbyterians/Reformed, actually not even with the Baptists [the “European” ones, which are those I know. I’ve read that Baptists in the US are a different story, especially the Southern Baptists…]
But it could also be that I am already so deep into Protestantism that I automatically interpret everything I read Protestant and not Catholic.
Because also in Acts 2:42 and Luke 24:27-35, I can’t see something like the present day (Catholic and Orthodox) Eucharist. You see, Presbyterian i.e. are “also breaking the bread”, ('though not as frequently as Catholics which do so every Sunday, at least.).

to be continued…

 

[Esdra]

continued from previous
Gabriel of 12:

The first century Jews were divided between their own Oral sacred Traditions which believed in the resurrection and those Jews who rejected their Oral sacred Traditions which only held to the letter of the law, just as Catholics hold to both written and apostolic Oral Traditions and protestants hold to just “sola scriptura” letters on a page =bible only.

Yeah, as I often keep saying: History keeps repeating itself.

Jesus rejected the small “t” traditions of men who added 666 more laws to the 10 commandments to follow. Jesus taught them they burdened God’s people with these man made “traditions”.

Jesus was never condemning the Oral Traditional teachings of His nor the apostles because Jesus had not died and resurrected yet to give His Church birth in the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Jesus commissioned His Church to go out and baptise, and forgive sin, and teach them to observe “all” that He commanded to them. This commissioning is found both in sacred scripture and sacred Tradition in the one holy Catholic and apostolic Church of Jesus Christ.

But didn’t the Oral T

raditions say in the OT? At least Jesus quite often quotes from the OT. Also when speaking against the pharisee’s sacred traditions!
So, could you say that Jesus was more “sola scriptura”?

I appreciate your interests here and continue to seek these revelations of God handed down to His Church through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit.

Peace be with you

Thank you so much.

Peace be also with you,

 

[PJM]

=Pax in Veritate;7503710]Thank you very much for the information. I had thought that the Tanakh was constant since Babylon, but reflecting on what I had learned, this is not necessarily the case. In fact a Jewish friend from school had even told me the story of the 72 rabbis writing the old testament into greek (the septuagint).

He didn’t mention the removal of books, but he did mention a Jewish apocrypha. I guess that was what he was referring to.

As with all things, its a complicated subject that for me and many others needs continually straightened out.

Actually friends it’s not “so complicated.” God Himself has already decided the issue:

**Eph.5: 27 **“that he [God] might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.”

John 14: 15- 18 "If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will pray

the **Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, **[17] [DONE DEAL; GOD CAN’T DENY HIS OWN REQUEST] even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you. “I will not leave you desolate; I will come to you”

**John 17:14-19 ** "I [Jesus] have given them thy word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I do not pray that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from the evil one.
*Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth. [18] As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth. ***Jesus Speaking to Peter: Matt. 16:19 “[19] " [Jesus]I will give you [Peter and successors] the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

***The matter is settled in God’s mind; even if it continues to be debated by those still seeking the truth. ***

God Bless,
Pat

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Actually Catholicism is very simple all that we believe is contained in (one paragraph) our profession of faith (Credo) which is recited at every baptism and Sunday Mass. If you go past this profession of faith you are trying too hard.

There is a difference between Catholics who practice their faith and those who don’t, also it should be noted that the Catholic church is the one Church that has championed the cause for “no divorce”, no practice of homosexual acts, no sex outside of marriage and has always maintained the position on side of life never abortion. How you view others in practice of the mentioned is never Catholic teaching. Although the Catholic church is the hospital for such as these and sinners such as myself.

Esdra;7526720]Thanks.
Wow, thank you again. You really have put a lot of effort into that post.
Man, actually, as I am a baptised Catholic, I should all know that. But I don’t. Catholicism is really quite complicated. So many things you should know and, of course, also believe, because IMO, especially in Central Europe, this is the main problem among Catholics: Divorce is OK, homosexuality is OK, premarital sex is of course okay (most normal thing in the world!)

The Didache is a Catholic document written centuries before the reformers. Are you sure you have read the complete Didache document, even the statement of confessing ones sins before recieving the Eucharist? I don’t believe the non catholics you listed believe or follow these prescriptions of the Didache?

Btw., I’ve read the **Didache **- but actually, I’ve found no single paragraph that’d contradict with the Evangelicals (neither with Lutherans, nor with the Presbyterians/Reformed, actually not even with the Baptists [the “European” ones, which are those I know. I’ve read that Baptists in the US are a different story, especially the Southern Baptists…]

Interesting; never mind the other non catholics, do you believe the Eucharist to be the true body, blood of Jesus Christ present as St. Paul presents it in his epistle with a curse attached. You see these non catholics conform to these scriptures without the original Sacred Oral Tradition that is practiced by Jesus and his apostles. So to cover up breaking bread means to just break ordinary bread is not biblical teaching but a man made teaching misinterpreted apart from sacred Tradition practices. Here is Jesus handing down the Eucharist from an Oral Tradition, before He institutes the Eucharist at the Last supper; Your list of protestants reject this teaching of Jesus and Pauls to interpret them to mean symbolic which a symbolic Jesus never exists…

John 6:47
Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.
48
I am the bread of life.
49
Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
50
this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
51
**I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world." **53
**Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54
Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. **56
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

But it could also be that I am already so deep into Protestantism that I automatically interpret everything I read Protestant and not Catholic.
Because also in Acts 2:42 and Luke 24:27-35, I can’t see something like the present day (Catholic and Orthodox) Eucharist. You see, Presbyterian i.e. are “also breaking the bread”, ('though not as frequently as Catholics which do so every Sunday, at least.).

to be continued…

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Jesus fulfilled the law and the prophets, He did not come to abolish the Law or the prophets. The letter of the law dictated the covenant, the (not oral) written traditions added to these laws in order to prevent the Jews from ever breaking a Law of the covenant is what Jesus was condemning.

LoL Jesus was never a sola scripturalist…Jesus brought to reality what was not written the Oral Traditions from the prophets which is the resurrection. This Oral sacred Tradition from the Old Covenant was believed by the Pharisees and rejected by the Saduccees, yet both were refuted for not recognizing their Messiah, King, High priest and Prophet.

Because the Old testament faith in the resurrection is not written in the Law, the solo scripturalist (Sadduccees) rejected this faith. Yet Jesus preached this Oral Tradition and brought the resurrection to pass.

And also with you

Esdra;7526728]**continued **from previous

Yeah, as I often keep saying: History keeps repeating itself.

[But didn’t the Oral **T

raditions say in the OT? At least Jesus quite often quotes from the OT. Also when speaking against the pharisee’s sacred traditions!
So, could you say that Jesus was more “sola scriptura”?

Thank you so much. Peace be also with you,

 

[PJM]

=Gabriel of 12;7526178]Ok, I will see if I can PM em’ to you

Sacred Scripture supports Sacred Tradition the two go hand in hand in order to recieve the “full deposit of faith” from Jesus and his apostles. What you are asking deals with what is revealed explicitly in scripture and the Traditions which are implicit in scripture.

For example there are many texts in the New Testament that reveal a liturgy (Mass) after the resurrection, Acts 2:42, Luke 24:27-35 among many others.

Termed 'breaking of the Bread" in “The Way Church” [Luke 24:35; Acts 2:42;46]

Trinity is another Sacred Tradition that was handed down both Orally and made implicit from sacred scripture.

Actually it is clearly stated in Scripture as well as the MANY implicit testimonies.

**Matt. 3:13-16 ** on th ocassion of the Baptism of Jesus by John… "Matt.3: 13-17.
"Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. John would have prevented him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”
And when Jesus [Son of God] was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, [The holy Spirit] and alighting on him; and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” [God The Father].

A list of sacred Traditions would be better served if you questioned one to see if it comes from sacred Tradition or small “t” tradition. I don’t have a list available nor do I know of a list. You see, a list would not really suffice because some sacred Traditions in other Catholic Rites may differ in practice but is believed the same. Secondly some sacred Traditions are practiced, but are not made doctrine =binding on all believers because they are believed by all and have not been attacked by heretics or heresies. For example the belief in “one God”, Jesus God incarnate, Mary a virgin who gave birth to Jesus etc…

I think a place to start between Tradition and tradition deals with the difference is between what is believed (doctrine) in by faith and practice by all Catholics and tradition which deals with disciplines.

We need to kep in mind that matters that are “only” Church Practice, not Doctrine or Dogma can be changed.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hello PJM Luke 24 reveals the first Mass because it reveals the liturgy of the Word followed by the Liturgy of the Eucharist, Luke expresses how Jesus reveals the “All” in scripture from the law and prophets point to him, as the Catholic Mass continues in this liturgical biblical setting today unchanged followed by the breaking of bread in the Eucharist to wit the disciples “eyes were opened” in seeing Jesus true presence only in the breaking of bread as celebrated today in the Mass. I don’t believe protestants view Jesus true presence in the breaking of bread as Catholics do as having Jesus truly present in our midst. The breaking of bread from biblical teachings is never a symbolic moment.

The first Jewish converts to Christianity labeled Jesus teachings as “The Way” because Jesus teachings superceded the old covenant relationship to God which included a partial relationship from obedience to the rules, whereby “The Way” revealed a new relationship with God by truly being lived in Christ Jesus which did not oppose Judaism but went beyond Judaism. After Peter heard from heaven to allow the Gentiles in the Church, late in the first century this combination of Jewish/Gentile converts in “The Way” becomes known as Catholic.= universal Church.

PJM;7527355]Termed 'breaking of the Bread" in “The Way Church” [Luke 24:35; Acts 2:42;46]

I agree with you that the Trinity is revealed in scripture, but the “word Trinity” is not in scripture. The oral Traditional belief of the Trinity is handed down not written until the Catholic Church defends this Oral Tradition of the Trinity 300+ years later when heretics and heresies taught against the revelation of God revealed in the Trinity, thus the Catholic church took the oral Tradition of the Trinity and made it “doctrine” binding on all those who follow Jesus and the apostles successors. This “doctrine” development is never a change but a revelation to defend the oral Traditions against Her enemies who try to change what is already believed. Making the Trinity “doctrine” is never a change or new teaching but a defense “developed” to protect this sacred Oral Tradition from ever changing making it a doctrine.

Actually it is clearly stated in Scripture as well as the MANY implicit testimonies.

**Matt. 3:13-16 ** on th ocassion of the Baptism of Jesus by John… "Matt.3: 13-17.
"Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. John would have prevented him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”
And when Jesus [Son of God] was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, [The holy Spirit] and alighting on him; and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” [God The Father].

I agree with you here, but for clarification the practice of our diverse Liturgies in the Catholic Rites may differ in practice and can change from language to culture, but All Catholics believe the doctrine of our liturgies the same which can never change, speaking of the sacramental ecomony held by all Catholic Rites.

This distinction if not clarified tends to be viewed by non catholics as a “change” when this is never the case from a doctrinal stand point.

Peace be with you

We need to kep in mind that matters that are “only” Church Practice, not Doctrine or Dogma can be changed.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[mackbrislawn]

Hi!

What was first: The egg or the hen?
Ehm, no. - Just kidding.

What was first? The Church or the Bible?

In another thread we came on the topic what was first: The Bible or the Church.

Here the original Quotes:
// Actually, you’re thoughts here are pretty intersting. I’d like to talk about that a little bit more in depth, Publisher. //*

in Christ,

Of course, the People of God existed first. Out of God’s people (church, if you will), came scripture. God’s people existed for many generations before scripture came to be. Not until Moses and those after him, was there any kind of “bible.” It is clear that scripture comes second. All that time from Adam to Moses there was only oral tradition, no scripture. It was members of God’s family that wrote scripture, that produced scripture. Scripture was written by members of God’s assembled people, for His people, and to His people. We must remember scripture was not written to outsiders, but on the contrary only to those already members of His people.

This applies to both the Old and New Testaments. The Christian Church existed before a word of Christian scripture was written. The Christian Church was founded by Jesus, and it was only afterwards that members of the Christian Church wrote some things down, and to an audience already Christian. So it is evident that the Christian scriptures come from the Church, not the Church from the scriptures.

(In a previous post it was stated something like “already, in the teachings of Jesus, the new testament was being formed.” No, not the new testament. It is better to say the teachings of the Church were being formed in the teachings of Jesus. Then, later, the Church put down some of Jesus’ teachings in the writings that eventually became the New Testament.)

P.S. Again, it should be emphasized that Scripture is for the benefit of those already in the community of faith, not to those ignorant of the faith. Peter asserts this when he says, “There are things in the writings of our beloved brother Paul that are difficult to understand, that the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the rest of the scriptures.” This is a powerful warning, and should be taken seriously.